Miscellanea IX. Saussure, Lacan, and the Language of Hemingway

Regarding the discussion of Hemingway’s stylistic language, if one remains solely at the level of rhetorical minimalism, one misses the ontological dimension of how a subject situates itself within language. This is, in reality, a confrontation between Saussure and Lacan regarding semiotic topology (topologie sémiotique), and critically, a choice between whether we subscribe to the algorithm $\frac{s}{S}$ or $\frac{S}{s}$.

These two algorithms, which appear to be merely mirror inversions of one another, actually demarcate distinct linguistic and world views. The capital "$S$" represents the Signifier (Signifiant)—the sound pattern, the written word, and the material shell of language; that symbolic entity operating in the locus of the linguistic Other (Grand Autre). The lower case "$s$" represents the Signified (Signifié)—the concept, meaning, or that fleeting sense of understanding.

Although Saussure, as the "Copernicus" of linguistics, was revolutionary in pointing out that "language does not reflect reality" and identifying that we generate experience within a specific linguistic system—even asserting that the linguistic system prescribes the essence of experience—he nevertheless betrayed a kind of classical humanist illusion in his $\frac{s}{S}$ algorithm. By placing the Signified above the Signifier and maintaining that the bar between them merely indicates an "indivisible" relationship of mutual reference, he implies an idealized unified field (champ unifié): as if, provided one chooses the precise Signifier, meaning can pierce through the fog of language and arrive with prioritized completeness—as if the world could be "named" without remainder.

Additional Notes:

• The Bi-planar Model (Le modèle bi-planaire): The classic diagram Saussure presents in the Course in General Linguistics is an ellipse containing the sound image of "arbor" (tree) and the conceptual drawing of a tree. While the bar distinguishes the two, the encompassing ellipse suggests a closed, self-sufficient whole. The notation $\frac{s}{S}$ here represents a classical semiotic belief: despite language being arbitrary (arbitraire), once established within a synchronic system (système synchronique), the Signifier serves as a reliable ladder to the Signified.
• The Shadow of Logocentrism (Logocentrisme): Placing the lower-case $s$ (meaning/signified) above the capital $S$ (signifier) metaphorically assigns "meaning" a sanctity or priority that transcends material form. This structure coincides with the shadow of Logocentrism in the Western philosophical tradition—the belief in the existence of a transcendental truth or pure concept for which language is merely an external husk. For early literary modernism, this was a temptation: writers believed that by refining language, they could touch the core known as the "Real."

Initially, Hemingway’s style—centered on "conveying experience" and stripped of all ornamental diction—seems to be the perfect execution of the Saussurean creed. People tend to believe that good literature is the direct generation and acquisition of experience itself, rather than a reliance on the associations and evocations of specific rhetoric. It is as if by deleting the superfluous and scraping away the surface glitz of language, as Hemingway did, experience ($s$) would reveal itself like rocks emerging from receding water. This view posits that the Signifier can possess a certain transparency, yielding to pure transmission of meaning.

Additional Notes:

• "One True Sentence" (Une phrase vraie): In A Moveable Feast, Hemingway mentions that when blocked, he would tell himself: "Write one true sentence." This early belief is a typical Saussurean practice. He attempted to strip away adjectives and adverbs because he viewed these modifiers as contaminants to the Signified ($s$).
• The Paradox of Transparency (Le paradoxe de la transparence): This minimalism pursues a "Writing Degree Zero" (Le degré zéro de l'écriture), attempting to turn language into a pane of clear glass through which the reader sees the distinct "thing" behind it. However, this effort conceals the fact that the glass itself (the Signifier) has refractive indices and thickness. The more Hemingway strove to make language disappear, the more he actually emphasized his extreme control over the Signifier.

However, once we probe deeper along Saussure’s path in search of that "pure experience," we discover that the effort toward "Signifier transparency" is a dead end. Lacan incisively intervenes to tear away this veil of sentimentality, pointing out that the modern subject's actual condition necessitates inverting the algorithm to $\frac{S}{s}$: the Signifier ($S$) must not only be placed on top but also holds absolute, repressive dominion over the Signified ($s$). More critically, the bar in Saussure’s diagram is not a link in Lacan’s view, but a blockage—a fundamental split and resistance. It signifies an unsurpassable barrier (barre) between Signifier and Signified; meaning is not fixed like a label beneath a symbol, but is constantly deferred and postponed in the perpetual sliding (glissement) of the signifying chain.

Additional Notes:

• Supremacy of the Signifier (Primauté du Signifiant): Lacan raising $S$ to the numerator position signifies that in the constitution of the human subject, one first encounters the dense symbolic network of the world (the Other); the subject is "written into" existence by the Signifier. Meaning ($s$) is always a secondary effect repressed underneath; it is the instantaneous result of the interaction between Signifiers, not an a priori source.
• The Bar of Repression (La barre / Verdrängung): In Lacan’s famous "Urinary Segregation" diagram (two identical doors labeled "Ladies" and "Gentlemen"), meaning does not arise from the reality behind the doors, but from the difference in the Signifiers on the doors. This bar symbolizes Primal Repression (Refoulement originaire). Meaning is always sliding; we can never grasp the determinate, final "Signified," only one substitute Signifier after another. This is why, when consulting a dictionary, the definition of a word always points to another word, ad infinitum.

Viewed in this light, Hemingway’s "Iceberg Theory," when placed in the Lacanian mirror, is by no means a Saussurean presentation of meaning, but precisely demonstrates the brutal "Hegemony of the Signifier." The one-eighth exposed above the water in Hemingway’s writing is the capital Signifier ($S$)—it is the text itself: hard, material, and even antagonistic. He refuses to explain, refuses to describe, providing only the contours of things. The massive seven-eighths underwater—the experience or concept the author wishes to convey but deliberately renders invisible—is the Signified ($s$) repressed beneath the bar, or more accurately, the Desire (Désir) blockaded by the bar. This repression constitutes the text’s immense psychological tension. The iceberg’s "unknowable totality" is not an intellectual puzzle awaiting a solution; it materializes the structural severance between the Signifier and the Signified. It is precisely because of the existence of this barrier that meaning can never fully arrive, circulating instead only as an echo or a trace within the gap.

Additional Notes:

• Unconscious Operation Beneath the Surface (L'inconscient structuré comme un langage): If the Signifier ($S$) is speech at the level of consciousness, then the repressed $s$ beneath the water corresponds to the Lacanian maxim that "the unconscious is structured like a language." The so-called "tension" in Hemingway’s text is the manifestation of psychoanalytic resistance (résistance) at the textual level.
• Material Antagonism of the Signifier (Matérialité du signifiant): The idea of the "hard one-eighth" is particularly evident in Hills Like White Elephants. The entire text is merely dialogue (a stream of Signifiers), yet the core Signified ($s$)—"abortion"—never appears. The unspoken word has not vanished; rather, as a structural Void (Manque/Vide), it forcibly distorts all present dialogue. The oppression felt by the reader stems from the fact that the bar is not only impassable but extremely solid.

Hemingway once said: "If a writer stops observing he is finished. But he does not have to observe consciously nor think how it will be useful... anything you delete that you know, you still have in the story." In a Lacanian context, this quote holds immense value for symptomatic analysis. This "omission" is not a lack of narrative logic, but a traumatic emergence of the Real (le Réel) when a subject attempts to forcibly suture (suture) $\frac{s}{S}$. When a mediocre writer attempts to place the priority of the Signified (meaning) before the Signifier, trying to fill every crevice with an omniscient perspective and explain every motive, he paradoxically exposes the impotence of the Symbolic (le Symbolique) to completely cover the Real. Because the human subject is not all-knowing, a full-force description of the Signified only highlights those parts deemed indescribable "by the limitations of language"—the surplus (plus-de-jouir). Consequently, this deepens the reader’s sense of fragmentation and absurdity: the more one explains, the more meaning becomes impoverished.

Additional Notes:

• The Real (Le Réel): In Lacan’s RSI (Réel, Symbolique, Imaginaire) triad, the Real is the primordial traumatic kernel that can be neither imagined nor symbolized. It is the hard core that cannot be named.
• The Hole/Gap (Béance / Trou): The "hole" Hemingway refers to—created by deleting what is known—actually points to the flaw left when the author attempts to suture reality with language. Mediocre explanation attempts to cover this flaw but only makes it more conspicuous. Over-signification leads to an implosion of meaning, making the reader aware of the vast chasm between language and reality. It is akin to explaining a joke: it not only dissolves the humor but exposes the failure of communication.

Conversely, Hemingway complied with the Law of Castration (Loi de la castration) in language. He acknowledged and utilized this bar. By strictly controlling the Signifier ($S$) within the realm of the known and visible, he was actually constructing a chain of Signifiers operating around an "absence." This writing strategy is a masterclass in anchoring (capitonnage): knowing that meaning is unstable, he used the hardest, simplest nouns as "quilting points" (points de capiton) to temporarily fix the sliding meaning. He did not attempt to suture the rift; instead, through the act of "deletion," he allowed the unwritten Signified ($s$) to slide beneath the chain of Signifiers, transforming into the reader's desire. This creates a text where "depth" originates not from the written words themselves, but from the "Void" structurally excluded from them—the unspeakable "Thing." Hemingway’s naturalness and depth arise precisely because he abandoned the delusion of "complete meaning," converting awe of the unknowable into a precarious, ice-walking control of the Signifier.

Additional Notes:

• Quilting Point (Point de Capiton): Lacan uses the buttons on a sofa (quilting points) as a metaphor for how Signifiers fix the Signified. Without "pinning down" certain key points, meaning would slide infinitely, descending into psychotic discourse. Hemingway’s hyper-specific nouns (specific names of wines, precise locations on a river, models of guns) serve as these "anchors." They appear to be details of realism, but in reality, they are piles driven into the turbulent sea of meaning to prevent the total collapse of the text.
• Object $a$ (Objet petit a) and the Production of Vacuity: The excluded "Void" is not without function; it is the cause of desire, what Lacan calls objet petit a. It is because Hemingway does not write out the core experience that a gravitational field forms around this "lack," seducing the reader’s desire into the text in an attempt to fill the blank.
• Metonymy (Métonymie): This strategy of allowing meaning to slide beneath the chain of Signifiers is a typical mechanism of metonymy (corresponding to Freud’s "displacement"). Hemingway does not directly touch the core of the trauma but moves along the edge of it, using one concrete thing (Signifier) after another to refer to it, to approach it, yet never to arrive. This posture of eternally maintaining distance is precisely the "hard-boiled" aspect of Hemingway’s style—the dignity of the subject in the face of linguistic castration.